SA Footy

Why is it that you hear this phrase so often about bands?

Unless it is meant that music loses its integrity once it becomes commercial, it's often illogical to think that a lot of bands don't get better as they go on.

Is it a form of 'music snobbery' perhaps?

eg: would anyone really suggest that INXS's first album was better than the following ones?

Just for discussion.

I reckon Bon Jovi's SLIPPERY WHEN WET was better than anything they've produced since.

John Farnham peaked around 86/87, I don't rate much of his music after that.

Thats 2 examples I can think of, I'm sure a lot of acts do get better with age though.

Interesting one, R&B.

Just my opinion only, but there are some bands that I really like, but find that their later stuff is not as "repeat listenable" as their earlier stuff. For one, I find that Pearl Jam's last couple of albums have not grabbed me anywhere near as much as "Ten" or "Vs" - their style has slid more toward poppier material than the stuff of theirs I grew to love when they first started.

INXS is an interesting one to raise. A lot of people completely dismiss anything after "X", but I personally found some of their best material is on the latter albums. "Welcome To Whereever You Are" for example, has "Heaven Sent" and "Beautiful Girl" on it, whereas "Full Moon, Dirty Hearts", IMHO, is an incredibly underrated album of theirs also - a much rawer sound than "Kick", while flowing neatly from their style.

On the other hand, I think only the most diehard of Rolling Stones fans would even contemplate placing, say. "Let It Bleed" alongside "Bridges To Babylon". Not even in the same postcode, IMHO.

Top discussion topic, however, and can probably think of plenty of cases for and against the idea.

The Offspring - New stuff is absolute rubbish, but early on they were great

I reckon John Farnham peaked with Sadie!

Must admit most bands or artists I think if I did prefer their early stuff.
Maybe it's because they spend many years thinking up their early stuff and are under pressure to mass produce when they become popular?

I can't think of a lot of artists where I preferred their latest stuff but I can think of quite a few where "the stuff in the middle" was my favourite.

Wedgie wrote:I reckon John Farnham peaked withe Sadie!

Must admit most bands or artists I think if I did prefer their early stuff.
Maybe it's because they spend many years thinking up their early stuff and are under pressure to mass produce when they become popular?

I can't think of a lot of artists where I preferred their latest stuff but I can think of quite a few where "the stuff in the middle" was my favourite.

Pretty fair theory, I reakon. Particularly when, with some earlier artists, there was a lot of pressure to push out albums at a fairly quick rate.

Ironically, as I'm writing this, just had "New Year's Day" followed by "Elevation", both U2, on my MP3 - U2 are one act I've found I've preferred some of their later stuff to some of the earlier material. Part of that was due to drowningly saturation airplay of "The Joshua Tree" over the years, turning an album I used to really like into one I can pass up a lot now. Plus, their style now is fairly different to, say "Boy" or "The Unforgettable Fire".

This thread is about REM right?

Loved all the early KISS, when Dynasty came out I lost interest pretty quickly

Leaping Lindner wrote:This thread is about REM right?

No, it's about Metallica. Or AC/DC.

Black Flag. Much preferred Keithy and Dez to anything that Rollins did up front.

Def Leppard - On through the night, High n Dry, Pyromania, Hysteria...all fantastic records. (1980 to 1987)
Then Steve Clark the guitar played died and they released Adrenalize. Can I say "Lets get Rocked"?? Never been the same since Hysteria.

Motley Crue - Too fast for Love to Dr. Feelgood (1981 to 1989) Great.....from there all down hill.

Daivid Bowie - OK...might get shot down here by some but really....after 1983's Lets Dance he has not delivered.

Elton John - Bit like Bowie.....my last album I liked from him was 1983's Too Low For Zero.....now we have soppy, MOR hits like Club at the end of the street, Sacrifice and that Lion King song. Never been the same since he got off the drugs!!!

Ozzy Osbourne - Has put out some awful albums since the excellent No More Tears album of 1991. Very forgetable.

U2 - Big fan of anything under POP ( yes..I liked this album) Now just radio friendly hits without the power or energy of early years.

Radiohead - Pablo Honey good, The Bends excellent, Ok Computer excellent. After Kid A come out I have liked the odd song but have lost alot of interest.

u2 for me

Waiting for Regurgitator to get a mention..."I like your old stuff better then your new stuff"

Seriously though...Regurgitator (New EP and Tu Plang) are awesome..down hill with Unit etc

Metallica's first decade up to the Black album is obviously better. Whether you like the black album or not is another matter.

Linkin Park
U2
Korn
Guns N Roses
Pearl Jam

Probably had a lot to do also with musical styles changing too. ie : hair metal, punk, grunge, techo, emo etc....

Once a certain gerne of music dies....alot of bands get lost in the wilderness and second quess themselves.

Foo Fighters and QOTSA. First two albums from both bands shit on anything they've done since.

Silverchair grew up and went downhill after Frogstomp

This could apply to just about every music act since the caveman banged his first bongo...